| Literature DB >> 35200644 |
Kristaps Berzins1, Reinis Muiznieks1, Matiss R Baumanis1, Inese Strazdina1, Karlis Shvirksts1, Santa Prikule1, Vytautas Galvanauskas2,3, Daniel Pleissner4,5, Agris Pentjuss1, Mara Grube1, Uldis Kalnenieks1, Egils Stalidzans1,2.
Abstract
Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is one of the most important long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LC-PUFAs), with numerous health benefits. Crypthecodinium cohnii, a marine heterotrophic dinoflagellate, is successfully used for the industrial production of DHA because it can accumulate DHA at high concentrations within the cells. Glycerol is an interesting renewable substrate for DHA production since it is a by-product of biodiesel production and other industries, and is globally generated in large quantities. The DHA production potential from glycerol, ethanol and glucose is compared by combining fermentation experiments with the pathway-scale kinetic modeling and constraint-based stoichiometric modeling of C. cohnii metabolism. Glycerol has the slowest biomass growth rate among the tested substrates. This is partially compensated by the highest PUFAs fraction, where DHA is dominant. Mathematical modeling reveals that glycerol has the best experimentally observed carbon transformation rate into biomass, reaching the closest values to the theoretical upper limit. In addition to our observations, the published experimental evidence indicates that crude glycerol is readily consumed by C. cohnii, making glycerol an attractive substrate for DHA production.Entities:
Keywords: FTIR spectroscopy; Krebs cycle; central metabolism; constraint-based model; kinetic model
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35200644 PMCID: PMC8879253 DOI: 10.3390/md20020115
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mar Drugs ISSN: 1660-3397 Impact factor: 5.118
Figure 1Growth and substrate consumption of C. cohnii on media with ethanol (a), glycerol (b), or glucose (c).
Figure 2Mixotrophic growth of C. cohnii on glycerol with ethanol (a) or with glucose (b).
Figure 3Vector-normalized, second-derivative FTIR spectra of C. cohnii biomass, showing relative amounts of accumulated PUFAs when grown with glycerol vs. glucose (a) or with glycerol vs. ethanol (b). Spectra obtained from cultivations with three concentrations of each carbon source are presented: with 5 g/L, 10 g/L and 40 g/L of glucose; 8 g/L, 14 g/L and 27 g/L of glycerol; and 0.7 g/L, 1.5 g/L and 3 g/L of ethanol.
Figure 4Metabolic network scope of the kinetic model. Dashed lines show transport reactions. Abbreviated metabolites—ExtGlucose: external glucose; ExtGlycerol: external glycerol; ExtEthanol: external ethanol; Glu6P: glucose 6-phosphate; Fru6p: fructose 6-phosphate; Fru1,6P: fructose 1,6-bisphosphate; DHAP: dihydroxyacetone phosphate; Gra3P: glyceraldehyde-3-phopshate; Gri1,3P: glycerate-1,3-biphosphate; Gri3P: glycerate-2-phosphate; Gri2P: Glycerate-2-phosphate; PEP: phosphoenolpyruvate; Acetyl-CoA: acetyl coenzyme-A. (Enzymes: HK: hexokinase; PGI: Phosphoglucose isomerase; PFK: Phosphofuctokinase; ALD: Fructosebiphosphate aldolase; TPI: Triosephosphate isomerase; Gra3PDH: Glyceraldehyde phosphate dehydrogenase; PGK: 3-phosphoglycerate kinase; PGM: Phosphoglycerolmutase; ENO: Phosphopyruvate hydratase; PYK: Pyruvate kinase; PDH: pyruvate dehydrogenase; PYC: pyruvate carboxylase; CS: citrate synthase; ACO: aconitate hydratase; IDE: isocitrate dehydrogenase; OGDH: 2-oxoglutarate dehydrogenase; SS: succinyl-CoA synthetase; SDE: succinate dehydrogenase; FUH: fumarate hydratase; MDE: malate dehydrogenase; ACL: ATP-dependent citrate lyase; ME: malic enzyme; ADH: alcohol dehydrogenase; ALDH: acetaldehyde dehydrogenase; AcA LIG: acetate CoA ligase).
Some simulated flux rates for different substrates.
| Experimental Data | Substrate | Substrate | Single | Krebs | ACL | Specific Growth Rate μ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cui et.al. 2018 [ | Glucose, | 3.58 | 21.46 | 2.43 | 3.87 | 0.051 |
| This study | Glycerol, | 2.42 | 7.27 | 0.90 | 1.44 | 0.023 |
| This study | Ethanol, | 7.76 | 15.52 | 3.00 | 4.76 | 0.046 |
Validation data.
| Reference | Consumption | Specific Growth Rate |
|---|---|---|
| Cui et.al. 2018 [ | Glucose 0.65 | 0.051 |
| Cui et.al. 2018 with ETA [ | Glucose 0.61 | 0.047 |
| This study | Glucose 0.59 | 0.044 |
| Taborda et al. 2021 [ | Glucose 0.37 | 0.017 |
| This study | Glycerol 0.44 | 0.023 |
| Taborda et al. 2021 [ | Glycerol 0.43 | 0.019 |
| This study | Ethanol 1.41 | 0.046 |
| Taborda et al. 2021 [ | Acetate 0.60 | 0.025 |
Figure 5The stoichiometric model predicted the maximal specific growth rate μmax comparison with experimentally determined μ at experimentally determined values of substrate consumption (Table 2).
The efficiency of substrate transformation into biomass for experimentally observed and optimized data.
| Experimental Data | Substrate | Carbon (C1) | Experimental | Optimized by Stoichiometric Modeling | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| μ | Carbon C1 per gDW Biomass | μmax
| Carbon C1 per gDW Biomass | |||
| Cui et.al. 2018 [ | Glucose 0.65 | 3.9 | 0.051 | 76.5 | 0.092 | 42.4 |
| This study | Glycerol 0.44 | 1.32 | 0.023 | 57.4 | 0.031 | 42.6 |
| This study | Ethanol 1.41 | 2.82 | 0.046 | 61.3 | 0.067 | 42.1 |
Figure 6Estimation of DHA production potential by the constraint-based stoichiometric model at different biomass production intensities: 100% (=μmax), 80% and 40%.
Figure 7Information flow-to and -from pathway-scale kinetic model and central carbon metabolism scale constraint-based stoichiometric model.